Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I stumbled upon this Super Hawk this morning and plan on going to look at it this afternoon.

These are pretty high on my list as far as bikes go.

He's asking $3,600 OBO.

Bike is a '98 with 7600 miles on it (less than my 09 SV had on it when it was stolen)

Has D&D exhaust and SS brake lines, claims to be all stock outside of that.

Craigslist page





It looks pretty clean, I'll have to check on the obvious stuff once I see it in person.

Any way, what's your opinion on his asking price?

What about age / miles / reliability. I'm pretty comfortable with Honda's reputation, but everybody builds a bad bike now and again.
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
The VTR is a lovely bike. It sufferes from some of the same cost-cutting moves (suspension) decisions that make the SV less than it could be. It's a Honda, so reliability really isn't an issue.

I think interwebnetz forum price discussions are a waste of time. If you like the bike and are willing to pay what's asked, that becomes a perfectly fair price. Super Hawks are not all that common, so whatever price point you and the seller strike becomes the real market price.

My only caveat about that bike is it's horrifficly short range. (Big carbs = lots of fuel getting sucked in) The 1998 VTR has the earlier (smaller) gas tank.
2010 Cycle World article on used Super Hawks.: http://www.cycleworld.com/2010/06/01/best-used-bikes-honda-vtr1000f-super-hawk/ (I think the CW article reflects their whorish editorial lack of criticality when reviewing bikes from Big Advertisers.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I think the fuel range is going to be the biggest con for the bike. One of the great things about the SV was knowing that I could fill it up and go pretty much for ever.

The guy was pretty cool, he's only had the bike a few weeks. He's one of those buy bike, ride till it bores you, get new bike types. He said his wife doesn't like the seat, he also said he usually rides i4's and that the more he rides it the less he wants to sell it. (vtwin for the win) and he might end up just getting a new seat for it.

I'll have to do some comparing and some thinking on it. Having that sound in my head is gonna have me dreaming of v-twin goodness for weeks. Lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
661 Posts
Imo, that's a pretty optimistic price for a bike that old, even in as good condition as it appears. 120hp is also pretty optimistic I would say with only slipons. Reliability-wise it should be pretty safe though. If he came down another $1k I'd talk.

Hell, if I took my RC51 to completely stock I might consider $3600, but I really want to wait until at least spring to sell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
I have a Hawk and love it. 26k on it now. $3600 is too high. It's pretty stock and low miles but still, its a 98. Superhawk forum is a great source for info. Gas mileage is pretty poor. HP is closer to 105-110. A lot of people recommend installing manual cam chain tension (CCT) adjusters on those bikes. Probably could go another 10k before thinking about it. Gauges changed a little after '00 but very little else. Do a quick look at Craigslist in a few neighboring states and check Superhawk forum for prices. They are great bikes and fun to ride and they sound awesome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I did get the NADA value before going down there so I was aware he was asking high. In the position he's in he doesn't seem interested in going much lower, (He told me strait up he turned down an offer of 3200)

While he did say he buys and sells on a fairly regular basis the way he was talking about the bike seems like it's more of a "Hey honey, it's not selling, I guess we'll just have to get a Corbin seat for it and keep it for a while" venture (and if it's not it's turning into that fairly quickly)

Either way it's a no go for me, don't have quite enough ducks in a row to justify the purchase, even if it was at a better price. This just means I can hope it pops back up later on at a better price point when I'm prepared to jump on it.

Thanks for all the comments regarding the bike itself, mostly confirmed what I knew about the bike. It'll stay on the short list for sure.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
The VTR is a lovely bike. It sufferes from some of the same cost-cutting moves (suspension) decisions that make the SV less than it could be.
I always read that the Superhawk's stock suspension was actually VERY good, with fully adjustable dampening stock.

I think if this bike had better range (larger tank, more efficient fueling sacrificing some power) it would be one I would consider. It has the same shortcoming in that respect as the SV1000 (thirsty) to me.

I also agree about $3600 being a bit high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
I always read that the Superhawk's stock suspension was actually VERY good, with fully adjustable dampening stock.

I think if this bike had better range (larger tank, more efficient fueling sacrificing some power) it would be one I would consider. It has the same shortcoming in that respect as the SV1000 (thirsty) to me.

I also agree about $3600 being a bit high.
The SV1000 is nowhere near as thirsty as a Superhawk. The Superhawk takes it to an entirely different level.

If I beat on the bike I might get 130 miles on the tank. From what I see here, the worst guy got 90 miles out of a tank, and the average is maybe 105-110 (although some claimed the 140 miles, but they definitely weren't being hooligans to get 140 miles to a tank on a Superhawk). I can go at least 150 miles on a tank and could probably do better than that if I didn't care about being stranded.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
The SV1000 is nowhere near as thirsty as a Superhawk. The Superhawk takes it to an entirely different level.

If I beat on the bike I might get 130 miles on the tank. From what I see here, the worst guy got 90 miles out of a tank, and the average is maybe 105-110 (although some claimed the 140 miles, but they definitely weren't being hooligans to get 140 miles to a tank on a Superhawk). I can go at least 150 miles on a tank and could probably do better than that if I didn't care about being stranded.
I need more like 200 mle range to be comfy, something my SV650 does pretty easily.
Your 130 on the SV1000 is limiting....or I would already be riding one myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
I need more like 200 mle range to be comfy, something my SV650 does pretty easily.
Your 130 on the SV1000 is limiting....or I would already be riding one myself.
Funny....I've never found it limiting and I've been riding mine the last 3 years. Italicizing the word "is" doesn't make your argument any stronger. You're comparing apples to oranges when you compare your 650cc's fuel economy to a 1000cc bike (of course the 650 will do better)...that's not making sense in this particular thread. In an apples to apples comparison, an SV1000 does quite well when compared to other twins, especially the Superhawk.

You're actually getting 200 miles on a tank when romping the bike during the whole tank? I highly doubt that. When I got 130 to the tank, I was horsing around quite a bit. That is not the norm.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
Funny....I've never found it limiting and I've been riding mine the last 3 years. Italicizing the word "is" doesn't make your argument any stronger. You're comparing apples to oranges when you compare your 650cc's fuel economy to a 1000cc bike (of course the 650 will do better)...that's not making sense in this particular thread. In an apples to apples comparison, an SV1000 does quite well when compared to other twins, especially the Superhawk.

You're actually getting 200 miles on a tank when romping the bike during the whole tank? I highly doubt that. When I got 130 to the tank, I was horsing around quite a bit. That is not the norm.
Sorry to hurt your SV1000 feelings by mentioning your bike. I was merely saying that the Superhawk, like the SV1000, have limited range and that's all there was keeping me from owning one. Both bikes are very desireable to me otherwise, get it? I absolutely love my SV and switching to a 1000 would be somewhat familiar as far as ergonomics.
I get 50mpg no matter how I ride this motor. Can get upper 50's if I baby it and stay off the Interstate.
And whether you need more range is irrelevant to what I feel I need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
Sorry to hurt your SV1000 feelings by mentioning your bike. I was merely saying that the Superhawk, like the SV1000, have limited range and that's all there was keeping me from owning one. Both bikes are very desireable to me otherwise, get it? I absolutely love my SV and switching to a 1000 would be somewhat familiar as far as ergonomics.
I get 50mpg no matter how I ride this motor. Can get upper 50's if I baby it and stay off the Interstate.
And whether you need more range is irrelevant to what I feel I need.
Hey, as long as the mileage are better than a car, I don't care, because its SOOOOOO much fun to ride it becomes irrelevant to me. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Motorcycle.com App
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
Hey, as long as the mileage are better than a car, I don't care, because its SOOOOOO much fun to ride it becomes irrelevant to me. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Motorcycle.com App
Not talking mpg. Talking range. Most cages have plenty of range. Your SV1000 has the same tank as the 650.
Not talking fun. Talking range. Miles per tank.
You SV1000 owners are a sensitive lot aren't you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
I need more like 200 mle range to be comfy, something my SV650 does pretty easily.
I don't see how you can be getting a 200 mile range "pretty easily". Can it be done? Sure. But even at 50mpg, you're going to have a half-gallon or less remaining at the 200 mile mark. Going that low, I wouldn't say it "easily" makes that kind of range. I'm not comfortable regularly riding down to that low of a reserve capacity - especially since you can't ever use up all of the fuel in the tank, added to the fact that very low fuel levels can potentially lead to erratic running through turns as what fuel that's left sloshes from side to side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
Not talking mpg. Talking range. Most cages have plenty of range. Your SV1000 has the same tank as the 650.
Not talking fun. Talking range. Miles per tank.
You SV1000 owners are a sensitive lot aren't you?
Not sensitive, just logical. If you notice, I was also talking about range, not MPG. As well, we're talking about the Hawk and nowhere did anyone compare it with a 650-size engine that's always going to do better. That's not a good comparison. And while the 650 and 1000 SVs share the sam tank, it's the difference in engines that dictate fuel consumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
Sorry to hurt your SV1000 feelings by mentioning your bike. I was merely saying that the Superhawk, like the SV1000, have limited range and that's all there was keeping me from owning one. Both bikes are very desireable to me otherwise, get it? I absolutely love my SV and switching to a 1000 would be somewhat familiar as far as ergonomics.
I get 50mpg no matter how I ride this motor. Can get upper 50's if I baby it and stay off the Interstate.
And whether you need more range is irrelevant to what I feel I need.
I view things a bit differently. I don't always focus on ME when it comes to bike talk and forums. When I made my comments, I was comparing objectively, not subjectively. We're not talking about squeezing out the most of the fuel in the tank. We're talking about fun factor vs fuel. In that URl I posted, many people were stating that if you have fun on the Hawk, you'll pay the price by having to stop for a fill-up at 90-100 miles on the average for that bike. If you think that the SV1000 will mimic that experience and that's what's holding you back from getting one, then you're missing out on a good bike. It will never get the same mileage out of a tank as a 650, but you're going to find that most twin 1000s will be lacking in comparison to lesser displacement bikes when it comes to fuel consumption.

You seem to think that I'm butt hurt. No, I'm not. But you're wrong in your statement that Sv1000s consume fuel similar to Superhawks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
Of course it's about me.
And I reitterate, I was not saying the SV1000 was as fuel hungry as the Honda. I was only trying to agree with others that the limited range on the Honda was maybe an issue. I also added that the limited range thing was an issue with the SV1000 to me, as those two bikes are similar and desirable.
An ideall big twin is the Futura. Bigger tank.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top